The royal boobs

Page: < 12345 > Showing page 3 of 5
Author
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 17:32:39 (permalink)
omg someone topless whilst sunbathing shocker!

it's normal behaviour, don't like it happening and being printed in the papers? Don't be famous.

most of the world seems to love being voyeuristic it's part of human nature, nothing will change this and will only get worse unless people stop giving a shit.

Whilst I'd love for that to happen it wont.
#61
fyan
  • Total Posts : 42038
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 17:33:06 (permalink)
I've not really been paying attention, have the mail said CONDEMN THIS VILE FILTH re: paps & long lens photography?

They use them nearly every day, despite promising not to after Diana.
#62
MikeW
  • Total Posts : 7197
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 17:34:01 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: DJIRAH



Need to up my camera game. Just out of interest if the above pic is true what sort of equipment & how much money would i need to achieve similar results?


As I was interested in this point and noone seemed to be answering the question and I was sufficiently bored I did a google search or two and found that you would need at the very least a 300mm telephoto lens which will set you back around 4 grand. Or you could make sure you get the job done and spend 9 grand on an 800mm.

So plus the cost of the camera and tripod you are looking at at least 5-6 grand.

Actual photographers please correct me if I'm wrong.
#63
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 17:38:14 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Truncated

omg someone topless whilst sunbathing shocker!

it's normal behaviour, don't like it happening and being printed in the papers? Don't be famous.

most of the world seems to love being voyeuristic it's part of human nature, nothing will change this and will only get worse unless people stop giving a shit.

Whilst I'd love for that to happen it wont.


Look at the distance the photographer was from the person and the fact that she was on private property. Not reasonable is it. There'd be no argument if she'd done that on a public beach. Use your loaf mate..
#64
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 17:53:23 (permalink)
I'm not saying it's right, but if I was her I'd expect it to happen.

shameful but it's a reality of today's culture.
#65
Willfunk
  • Total Posts : 11863
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:00:49 (permalink)
They didn't really have a choice about being famous really
#66
Overlay
  • Total Posts : 16567
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:02:36 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: nayf

I've not really been paying attention, have the mail said CONDEMN THIS VILE FILTH re: paps & long lens photography?

They use them nearly every day, despite promising not to after Diana.


This. All the others are no better
#67
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:17:02 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: willfunk

They didn't really have a choice about being famous really


She did, William however no.
#68
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:26:17 (permalink)
The main point here is that everybody has a right to privacy. There is no newsworthyness (ie she isn't sleeping with Russian spies) in these pictures therefore, given the circumstances, they should have no right to take them let alone sell them. If the photographer kept them to wank over would that make any difference to those of you who cant see just how bad this is?
#69
B.D.
  • Total Posts : 15714
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:28:24 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: PapaJaro

The main point here is that everybody has a right to privacy.

Yeah, but she's married to royalty and was outside topless, what did you think would happen?
#70
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:30:34 (permalink)
there's nothing illegal about it though so can't stop it from happening no matter how morally wrong it is.

if you do make it illegal it opens a whole can of worms that is much bigger than having someone's baps on the front page of a newspaper which would do more damage to the world as a whole.
#71
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:33:45 (permalink)
She may well have guessed they would try but my point was that they shouldn't be allowed to take those kind of photos. You on the other hand haven't commented on whether you think that's fair game.

There is a right to privacy in France and I would have thought this falls squarely within the sort of thing that isn't considered fair game. In any case do I have a right to buy a flat high up somewhere and take photos of you through your net curtains from hundreds of meters away using very specialised equipment? That's very different to you standing naked by your front window and getting irate because someone looks up at you from the pavement.
post edited by PapaJaro - 2012/09/15 19:37:56
#72
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:40:04 (permalink)
there's a right to privacy in the UK too,

but not if you're outside in view of public land, if he was sneaking onto the property to take the photos and taking photos of inside the house then yes it would fall under those laws.

However if you're not on private property and you're not taking pictures of a military installation of nuclear power plant you can do as you wish.

if you make doing that illegal it means all forms of filming and picture taking can be banned anywhere just because it's in view of private property.

I'm sure lots of big companies and governments would love this, I however do not.
#73
Horsey Boy
  • Total Posts : 16758
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:42:01 (permalink)
some of you are going on as if you dont like seeing TITTIES [sm=nono.gif]
#74
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:44:02 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Horsey Boy

some of you are going on as if you dont like seeing TITTIES [sm=nono.gif]


i love me some titties, but unfortunately it's hard to be excited by them when mine are bigger and more shapely.
#75
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 19:52:50 (permalink)
Nothing like the laws in France...this should lead to an interesting court case.

I understand the point you make about them being on public land and I would say nothing if people were watching them with the naked eye however the moment you use viewing aids like binoculars etc it becomes voyeurism. Using professional photographic equipment in the way he did takes this to another level completely.

The right to privacy is a personal one Truncated not related to buildings. As before you're probably going to ignore this example but anyhoo...would it be fair to use high tech lenses to film your mother naked in her back garden even from a public road? Do you not have the right to use your property as intended or are you saying that her back garden (with a reasonable sized wall around it) should be considered the same as public land? Should people be allowed to climb public trees for the sole purposes of getting a better vantage point of someone's garden?

It's common sense that the only time people should be invade someone's privacy like that is if there are exposing corruption or crime solving. This is just prurience.
#76
Sano
  • Total Posts : 6829
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 20:32:07 (permalink)
The papz were obviously out of order taking snaps but in their defence, its their job, we all know what lengths they goto.

The future queen of England should probably think twice before flapping her tits out on holiday if she doesn't want them over the news.

Tits = 6/10
Would bang.
#77
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 20:43:25 (permalink)
If someone wants to watch my mum with photographic lenses whilst she's naked in her garden that's viewable from a public road I say go ahead. She'd be silly for being naked in her garden if it was viewable from a public space in the first place.

If they climb a tree to view it then yes that is invasion of privacy as she was not on view and it is invading a space that has been made to be private. In this case though this didn't happen it was taken from a road.

But considering you can end up in court for being naked in your garden I don't think it's a wise idea anyway unless you have no neighbours

Right to privacy IS to do with land and buildings, if you are on public land or in view of public land I can take pictures of you all I want. If you request to be censored in those photographs then that's a different matter entirely.

(there are exceptions to this like bedrooms, doctors offices, airports etc)

I have no idea what the laws are in France however so would be interesting to find out/see what happens.
post edited by Truncated - 2012/09/15 20:47:02
#78
Overlay
  • Total Posts : 16567
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 20:43:46 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Truncated

there's a right to privacy in the UK too,

but not if you're outside in view of public land, if he was sneaking onto the property to take the photos and taking photos of inside the house then yes it would fall under those laws.

However if you're not on private property and you're not taking pictures of a military installation of nuclear power plant you can do as you wish.

if you make doing that illegal it means all forms of filming and picture taking can be banned anywhere just because it's in view of private property.

I'm sure lots of big companies and governments would love this, I however do not.


Not true. Not in France anyway. They'll walk their case. It's obvious that it was a private, family moment that has no public interest angle. However, the damages will be negligible. It's normally 25,000 euro. If you consider the amount the mag will have made from this that's a ridiculous amount.
#79
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 20:45:39 (permalink)
^^ see above last line Don't know French laws to do with photography I just assumed they would be similar to UK ones.
#80
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 21:33:47 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Truncated

there's a right to privacy in the UK too,

but not if you're outside in view of public land, if he was sneaking onto the property to take the photos and taking photos of inside the house then yes it would fall under those laws.

However if you're not on private property and you're not taking pictures of a military installation of nuclear power plant you can do as you wish.



See paragraph 2a mate... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

You seem to think that, so long as we stand on public land, we have a right to take photographs of young women's breasts using the latest in telescopic technology and most importantly...from a long long way off. This is why our law makers, who thankfully are cleverer than you, have given us the right do a private act (ie with your clothes off) where we would 'reasonably be expected to have privacy'.. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/68

Nowt to do with standing on public land you perv.
post edited by PapaJaro - 2012/09/15 21:53:20
#81
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 21:56:39 (permalink)
it's not reasonable to expect privacy in a garden that is visible from a public space, that law has nothing to do with photography it's about standing there and masturbating or taking video/pictures for the sole purpose of sexual gratification whilst someone is on private land.

completely different issues therefore your argument is meaningless in this context, it would never go to court unless the photographer ran home and uploaded it to a pornography website as there is no way of proving his original intentions.

the law stands, if you are on public land, you can see it without trying to circumvent privacy barriers like walls and fences and it's not within a restricted area you can photograph it.

the law is VERY clear here.
post edited by Truncated - 2012/09/15 22:35:57
#82
AzorAhaiReborn
  • Total Posts : 1199
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 22:04:12 (permalink)
Do these 'Royal' cunts do anything other than go on holidays?

Fucking sponging, freeloading, workshy bastards.
#83
wiseacre
  • Total Posts : 15257
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 23:18:45 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: AzorAhaiReborn

Do these 'Royal' cunts do anything other than go on holidays?

Fucking sponging, freeloading, workshy bastards.


I'm no royalist, but I can guarantee all of them have heavier schedules and do more for other people than you
post edited by wiseacre - 2012/09/15 23:19:45
#84
Easton
  • Total Posts : 625
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 23:23:05 (permalink)
Papajaro and Wiseacre, forum resident Royalists
#85
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 23:44:24 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Truncated
it's not reasonable to expect privacy in a garden that is visible from a public space


You're abusing the word 'visible' if you mean via the use of inordinately large telescopic devices from a long way away. In your world anyone who had the misfortune of living near a hill or mountain range would permanently lose the use of the space outside their house...

ORIGINAL: Truncated
it would never go to court unless the photographer ran home and uploaded it to a pornography website as there is no way of proving his original intentions.


Actually for a law to be workable there are instances where intentions may be inferred. I doubt it would be difficult to convince a judge these photographs were purely taken to titillate the public (a polite word for sexual gratification). It wasn't to educate or inform them was it?

ORIGINAL: Truncated
the law stands, if you are on public land, you can see it without trying to circumvent privacy barriers like walls and fences and it's not within a restricted area you can photograph it.

the law is VERY clear here.


Actually I linked you to the relevant bit of UK law and it made no such distinction. As I and other have mentioned an invasion of privacy begins when you start filming or photographing someone where they had a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy. There's no get out clause like you're suggesting.

As was said previously it's illegal in France as well it's just that the fines need to be made stronger.
#86
Truncated
  • Total Posts : 13519
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/15 23:53:04 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: PapaJaro

ORIGINAL: Truncated
it's not reasonable to expect privacy in a garden that is visible from a public space


You're abusing the word 'visible' if you mean via the use of inordinately large telescopic devices from a long way away. In your world anyone who had the misfortune of living near a hill or mountain range would permanently lose the use of the space outside their house...



they wouldn't lose the use of the space but if someone happens to take a photograph that contains them wanking into a cup whilst in their garden from said hill they would have NO legal comebacks unless they requested to be censored within the shot.* unless he can prove it was taken for the purposes of sexual gratification or the sexual gratification of others at a later date as per the law you posted.

the law you posted is not relevant! How is a piece of legislation that is meant to deal with sexual offences anything to do with photography?

I give up, you are wrong, every photography law website says you are wrong, regardless of the technology used to which there is NO distinction in law as to what you can use to take a photograph in fact there's very little law to say what you can and can't photograph in a public space beyond restricted areas AT ALL.

you are wrong so short of hiring a lawyer to come and tell you I give up so I will move on.
post edited by Truncated - 2012/09/16 00:07:50
#87
AzorAhaiReborn
  • Total Posts : 1199
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/16 00:07:48 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: wiseacre

ORIGINAL: AzorAhaiReborn

Do these 'Royal' cunts do anything other than go on holidays?

Fucking sponging, freeloading, workshy bastards.


I'm no royalist, but I can guarantee all of them have heavier schedules and do more for other people than you


[sm=laugh.gif]

The whole lot of them are a bunch of leeching benefit cheats.

Swanning around on holidays whilst that cunt Liz backs austerity wearing a diamond crown on her bonce.

The French and the Russians did the right thing years ago. Can't believe we're still stuck with this Feudalistic bullshit.
#88
PapaJaro
  • Total Posts : 6012
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/16 00:18:51 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Truncated

the law you posted is not relevant! How is a piece of legislation that is meant to deal with sexual offences anything to do with photography?



You think taking photographs of a young woman's breasts for the purposes of titillation isn't sexual? Voyeurism (or at least using gadgets to do it) is a sex crime in this country. The law I hooked you up with would be the one they would prosecute under in this country. If you could find the one that says it's okay unless they ask to be redacted I'd be very greatful.

Look you clearly have a mental blockage which I will try and unblock with this. A man buys a house on Ben Nevis. He then spends a small fortune on expensive cameras and sits on a chair on the edge of the road outside his house. With it he can see into the gardens of half the people of Wales...they of course not being aware of this. He sits there all day watching them through his lense. He's a voyeur and this is some kind of ultimate fantasy.

Can you see the problem? Do you think it makes a blind bit of difference whether the bit of road he sits on has been adopted by the local council or whether they should shoo him sit onto his roof to carry out his 'hobby'. Can you see why law makers would want to avoid spurious get out clauses like 'But I had one foot on public land your honour'?

It would quickly turn into one of those shots in snooker where they strain to keep one toe touching the floor.

The photography websites are quite correct because you can take photos from a public highway it's just this isn't quite the context they were thinking of. It all hinges on where you can reasonably expect to be private.
#89
Mod X
  • Total Posts : 26811
  • Status: offline
RE: The royal boobs 2012/09/16 00:19:31 (permalink)
Not sure you're quite making the distinction between normal photography and secretly taking pictures of topless women. Also, by your reckoning, I could hide in bushes sticking cameras up women's skirts hunting for fanny pictures because I'd be on public land. I'm still fairly certain I'd get nicked for being a sex offender if I did though. Even if you sat on top of a car park taking cleavage pictures if someone spotted you doing it the police would remove you. I genuinely don't think the law permits taking explicit photographs of people without their permission, especially if they are on private property and you're hiding somewhere with a telescopic lens without their knowledge. The point I think people are making is that she wasn't in 'plain view' because you couldn't possible make her out from that distance with the naked eye. That it took high powered telescopic lenses to be able to see her kind of makes it a moot point if you're referring to being in plain view.
#90
Page: < 12345 > Showing page 3 of 5
Jump to:
© 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.0